« first day (402 days earlier)      last day (3284 days later) » 

6:19 AM
@Caleb Google Translate! :P
 
6:39 AM
@El'endiaStarman That's one of the better reasons I can think of not to post them. I've seen what Google Translate does to Turkish. It's the stuff of legends nightmares.
 
6:55 AM
@Caleb But surely it's better than YouTube's English auto-transcribe feature...
 
 
3 hours later…
10:10 AM
@wikis I think you're reading me wrong. I don't think I need to calm down, in fact I could use something to get me woken up, if anything I'm in danger of falling asleep on the job today. Also, I don't think the comment thread on the issue belongs in chat yet (it might soon) because what I am trying to point out is a gap in your logic that (as far as I read it) makes it utterly untenable.
Either you are logically pushed to a fantastic conclusion or there are some pieces to the puzzle that you are skipping over and should fill into your answer to resolve the issue of what makes something lawful or not.
You'll note my comments have all been questions. I'm not yelling at you that you're wrong, I'm just trying jostle something loose so you see the hole and supply whatever answer you intend to give.
(as a side note: I dismissed your flag since it was personally addressed to me and I'm here addressing your points, but I also pinged the mod chat room to get somebody else to review it because dismissing offensive flags on your own stuff seems kind of like cheating)
 
10:33 AM
@Caleb Have you read Barbara Ehenreich's Smile or Die? She has interesting things to say about the prosperity gospel, none of it complementary.
 
10:48 AM
8
Q: Are other religions treated differently by any major branch of Christianity?

TRiGIn Judaism, some religions are considered to be Avodah Zarah, and others are not. So, for example, if Christianity or certain of its denominations is Avodah Zarah, that has implications for Jews' interactions with those religions and with their places of worship. Islam also distinguishes between...

I think I'll probably not accept an answer on this question. It looks complicated.
There's one additional consideration which none of the existing answers covers.
The definition of "Christian" is contentions (words have different meanings in different contexts). Are Mormons Christian? Are Catholics Christian? Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian? The answers to these questions depend on which definition of Christian you're using at the time.
So, given a certain definition of the word, Catholics may be defined as non-Christian. And yet they claim to be Christian.
So they are, within that specific perspective, a non-Christian yet "Christian" religion.
And that's one case that hasn't yet been covered in any of the existing answers.
 
11:23 AM
@TRiG Nope. Are you suggesting I need more fuel for the fire? My little mini tirade didn't make my position clear ;-)
@TRiG That's a good point. I think most people understood your use of "christian" in the over-broad in-quotes sense of every religion claiming to be such as opposed to those who don't (Budism, Islam, etc), but it would be a much more interesting question (although very difficult indeed to answer well) if a parallel question was asked about how internal divisions are treated differently.
 
11:55 AM
@Caleb: regarding the flag, that was just my way of speaking to you without going public (Matt15:15, not the sin part, the bit about one on one).
@Caleb: thanks for your response to that.
@Caleb: of course, it is possible to ask questions in a heated way, but I'm happy to admit my guess was wrong, sorry.
@Caleb: no, Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament written law. Good example: should Christians follow the Sabbath?
Col 2:16
 
@Wikis No worries.
 
@Caleb: Col 2:16
@Caleb: we are called to something far higher. Matt 7:12, Matt 5:48
 
@Wikis The Sabath is a tricky example, there is much debate both about what it means and about what part of the law it applies to..
I still say you have to apply your principle to a more obvious example.
Murder for instance.
@Wikis Higher, yes. In obliteration of the lower? I would say, no: built on it.
 
@Caleb: if there is a list of laws for us to obey, show me it. Instead I think Gal 5:22-23: by having the Holy Spirit we are inspired to obey the whole law.
@Caleb: but there where does it stop? Where do you draw the line? Should a Christian wear clothes made of two materials? Eat certain food?
 
@Wikis This is why the division between types of the law. Moral vs. Ceremonial.
 
12:04 PM
1 Cor 8: it is up to the conscience of the individual believer
Let's take your extreme case now, murder
No, I don't think it is justified, it's not exactly loving!
 
You either have to say that
* a Christian is not forbidden to murder, or
* they are required to fulfill the ceremonial law or (or some other clearly defined division)
* they are fully bound by the moral law but not ceremonial things fulfilled in Christ
* it's a free for all that you get to pick and choose all the way down the line with no real rules.
 
But (thinking out aloud here) is there a case where it is justified?
Capital punishment by the state. Could a Christian authorise it?
 
@Wikis Not murder.
 
I know eg George W Bush did.
Authorise capitial punishment (I'm not getting into the debate about wars and their legality now).
 
@Wikis Of course it's not loving. But "loving your neighbor" was Jesus way of SUMMING UP the ten commandments, cutting to the heart of what those were. He didn't say "scratch those rule things, here's a new standard." He said "here is what the really mean" In fact he said not a jot or a title would be removed from them, and made the implementation harder than most people originally thought.
 
12:09 PM
Does a Christian have diplomatic immunity, like an ambassador?
 
@Wikis Still not murder.
 
I'm pausing because I am thinking...
This is a good sign... :)
I'll come back to murder later...
It is a good point
But what about what Jesus said, that you quoted above about the Law not disappearing.
He didn't say, "except the ceremonial bits". Why do you think that was?
 
@Wikis Because by "law" he wasn't referring to them at all. His use of "the law" was pretty specifically a reference to a moral code, typified by the 10 commandments. There was no need to make exceptions for them when what they were not included in the thing referenced in the first place.
 
I don't see that from the context.
How do you get that interpretation?
Matt 5:17, right?
 
Pardon me it's been a while since I worked on the Matt one. Let's skip to Romans for a minute.
 
12:21 PM
@caleb I need to dash again. In the meantime, one other question. Is it ever permissible / right / legal to lie?
Will read your comments later...
 
Nearly half the book is a diatribe to the purpose of the law.
And the result it brings to men is death.
The "law" that brings (both in the sense of revealing, making active and finally judging) is the moral aspect of the law.
The ceremonial part could be kept by men. Dot your i's, cross your t's, wear the right fabric, don't be late for church, make the right sacrafice.
That's not what shows us our depravity.
God's moral standards do that ... shine a light into our darkness showing how dark it is. Against those standards we fail, hence the need to fall on Grace.
@Wikis I would tenably argue "no", but not based on the 10 commandments and answering that exact question won't resolve this issue.
The ten commandments don't actually address that, they say "don't bear false witness".
 
@Caleb The division between the moral law and the ceremonial law is a post hoc rationalisation by Christians looking for an excuse to ignore the bits of Judaism they dislike. There is no actual meaningful division at all.
 
12:38 PM
@TRiG Actually a lot of things in Christianity are post hoc interpretations based on light cast back on them by Jesus. But no they aren't based on the bits we wanted to ignore. In fact one of the biggest teaching points coming from Paul/Peter/Etc in the early church was trying to convince Jewish believers that that certain laws were ceremonial and didn't need keeping. Far from initiating it, they were pretty resistant to the idea.
 
@Caleb Yes but no but. The claim that there's a clear, unambiguous distinction between two (or three: I sometimes see a category for "civil law" too) elements in the Mosaic code is clearly wrong. That's reading back into the Torah something that's definitely not there in the original.
Leviticus is just one huge mass of "Law". There are no clearly discernible categories.
 
@TRiG I guess it's a good thing the Ten Commandments don't come from Leviticus.
Sorry that was kind of a low blow ... said with a smile :)
 
@Caleb The Ten Commandments are also a good example. All sorts of categories of law, all together.
 
@TRiG Ya I mentioned three above, but for the purpose of this discussion it's not that important.
@TRiG How do you figure?
 
@TRiG they're considered to be completely moral law in most interpretations
 
12:47 PM
@waxeagle The bit about bearing false witness has been interpreted not to be about lying generally, but specifically about lying in court. Perjury.
 
@TRiG that's a sad interpretation :(
 
> The phrase 'Ten Commandments' appears just twice in the Bible, and on neither occasion is it directly linked to the Ethical Decalogue.
@waxeagle Maybe. I do think there's no harm in specifically outlawing perjury, especially "bearing false witness against" someone, in addition to a more general prohibition on lying. It is, after all, an especially serious form of lying.
 
@TRiG right, I agree with that, but confining it to just perjury is insufficiently narrow to the intent (IMO)
 
@waxeagle I can't remember now where I've seen that interpretation, but I can assure you I didn't make it up.
 
@TRiG I don't doubt that this is an interpretation that's out there. I just think it's sad :)
 
12:54 PM
@Caleb Of course. My mistake. The Ten Commandments come from Deuteronomy.
 
@TRiG And Exodus.
 
@Caleb Except that Exodus 20 does not at any point include the phrase "Ten Commandments". ;)
 
@TRiG As wax noted, that's an uncalled for interpretation and not widely accepted. It's pretty widely accepted that the whole thing is moral. The tricky one would probably be the Sabath, hence why I didn't want to use that as an example above.
@TRiG Personally I could care less if you call it one or ten or 9 or 2 or 7.5 as long as you deal with the passage in question :) There are actually different breakdowns of where the splits between the ten fall. I use the typical Protestant one for convenience and convention, but I don't think it matters.
 
> Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in ploughing time and in harvest you shall rest.
And, of course,
> Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
 
1:18 PM
@TRiG Those are from an entirely different passage and not part of the ten commandments at all. Your link is miss-titled.
 
@Caleb Yes. I know. Did you read the link?
 
@TRiG Yes. And stared at it fore a few minutes before I figured out it was Exo 34 instead of 20.
@waxeagle did you catch where I was going with this:
Would an appeal to Doctrines and Covenants as an authoritative guide to interpreting the Protestant canon on this issue make a valid answer here? — Caleb 5 hours ago
He hasn't turned up since, but as soon as he does and answers that I was going to suggest his answer as how he needs to re-scope that question.
 
@Caleb yup
 
As we've seen already, it's going to be rough sailing without some proper scope on that one, and his current one doesn't cut the mustard.
 
@Caleb no, I almost closed it last night when I first saw it
 
1:25 PM
And I promise not to mix so many metaphors in my next soup.
 
@Caleb Oh please do.
 
@waxeagle Me too. I figured letting it slid for a while till he got it fixed wouldn't hurt. Time is proving me wrong.
 
@Caleb yeah every time I don't just close a poorly scoped question I regret it :(
 
While we're here, @kazark this ^^^ concerns you :)
Speaking of poorly scoped, has anybody noticed the user leader board? Specifically, the top tags for 85% of us. Jesus. God. Bible. Sin. Biblical-basis. BORING! I think we're doing something wrong.
2
Also @waxeagle did you tune into this conversation about question scope between Affable and yours truly?
 
1:49 PM
@Caleb Do you have a suggestion for how to rescope it?
And re: your comment, I think so.
 
@Caleb read briefly on my phone, but didn't digest very well
 
@Caleb "Jesus. God. Bible. Sin. Biblical-basis. BORING!"
I quite agree.
smirk
 
@Kazark if a D&C answer is seen as just as valid as a Bible one then you're probably fine (although I'm not sure how that's particularly useful)
@TRiG :)
 
@waxeagle Which opens the question of what on earth I'm doing here.
 
@TRiG I wonder some days, but we do keep you entertained somehow it seems
 
1:55 PM
> I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. Douglas Adams
@waxeagle Entertained is part of it, yes. Also what DNA said.
@waxeagle I should spend more time in EL&U than in Christianity SE, really. But, to be honest, I don't really find religion boring. I do find theology fairly boring, except insofar as I attempt to be at least somewhat interested in almost anything. But religion is much more than theology.
 
2:44 PM
@waxeagle Well, so long as he presents it as phrased: using D&C as a guide to interpreting the Protestant canon.
 
 
3 hours later…
5:22 PM
Looks like I'm finally going to be able to leave in the next hour. I've only been here for te 29 hours straight, so this is good!
I hate being a manager sometimes...
 
@AffableGeek 29 hours straight?!? What's been going on over there?
 
 
1 hour later…
6:36 PM
My boss had thos brilliant idea that we consolidate our two data centers (not a bad idea), but then said we had to get it done within 2 months. Thta included having not enough server space (we have to play a game of move some, fill them), disks (I have 200 virtual machines being served by 32 disks), and the fact that prior to two months ago, I never did any VMWare
 
You have my sympathies.
 
The sad thing about success is that the more good you do, the more they expect...
2
 
@AffableGeek That's the voice of experience.
 
You've been burning the midnight oil yourself, Caleb - I saw you really late last night..
 
@AffableGeek It was only 1 or so when I skipped off on you, not very late for me. But I was up before 6, which is beyond early for me.
 
7:38 PM
@Hrafn: The difference is that somebody who doesn't enjoy golf, can simply ignore the fact that golf is around. If you go through the trouble of learning golf, you are (at least for that time) a golfer. That doesn't apply here; you can study religion to any degree without believing it to be a valid description of reality (i.e. remaining an atheist). There actually is an atheistic point of view regarding scripture: It's fictional. You are free to disagree with that point, but then I would dispute your status as atheist. — bitmask 2 days ago
I have a feeling a Atheism/Agnosticism site is doomed to failure. ^^^^
 
8:04 PM
@JonEricson Considering one of the leading proponents wants to just stuff it with the old content without even understanding why it failed in the first place ... I don't see it going anywhere.
That is quite a gem of a statement however.
 
8:39 PM
@Caleb: not going to be able to put more time into this conversation now. Except to say (about lying), I once thought that lying was always wrong. Then someone challenged me by asking what I would do if I were in WW2 hiding a Jew and a Nazi soldier came to the door and asked if I was hiding a Jew. In that case, it would be more loving (Gal5) to lie. If we were under law, this option would not be open to us.
@Caleb: not to say you can't come back on me, just I might not be able to respond.
 
 
3 hours later…
11:36 PM
@Wikis - That's a common argument against the whole a sin is a sin is a sin argument. I think there's a good concept, taught in the Concealed Carry class I attended a while back that taught that killing a person in self-defense is justified, and the wording used applies to your example:
"Anyone who uses force against another person, even for self-defense, must be prepared to justify the necessity for the violence. Allowing one to use force to defend him/herself in a self-defense situation is a privilege that permits one to do something that would otherwise be illegal. "
That's applicable to criminal law, not spiritual, but comparatively, if I were to shoot someone in self-defense, I'd better be sure that all four of the "links in the chain" are present. the circumstances in which lethal force can be used are very specific, and your average person has no idea what those circumstances are..
But the key is that the action is illegal, but allowable in a certain, specific set of circumstances.
I know Gos isn't restrained by our own set of what's right and wrong, or our own logic and reasoning, but it seems to me that the only alternative in Nazi Germany would have been to die defending the Jew. in which case, they would have been killed soon after me anyway. It's a no-win situation.
That should have read "I know God isn't restrained..."
So I see your point, and wish I could agree with it, but in that situation I think I'd still pray for forgiveness of the lie, recognizing that lying is wrong, but asking God to forgive me as in my own human comprehension it seemed like it was the only way to spare the life of others. Because it might still be wrong in God's eyes, but if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them.
Or so I've heard. ;-)
 

« first day (402 days earlier)      last day (3284 days later) »